Question for LDS

[Caprica]

Don;t need to. The fact they were published is enough. What you need to do is prove he never corrected them or did not approve of them

Sorry, I don’t need to prove a negative. Brigham Young claimed that he had to correct the sermon and approve it for it to be considered scripture. I am asking for it to be demonstrated (and not just present assumptions with no evidence) that he did do this. If you cannot do this, then please just say so. Since the wikipedia link provided earlier stated that Brigham Young relied on reporters, it must be demonstrated that the words published were the corrected words by Brigham Young himself, and approved by him as scripture.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Sorry, I don’t need to prove a negative. Brigham Young claimed that he had to correct the sermon and approve it for it to be considered scripture. I am asking for it to be demonstrated (and not just present assumptions with no evidence) that he did do this. If you cannot do this, then please just say so. Since the wikipedia link provided earlier stated that Brigham Young relied on reporters, it must be demonstrated that the words published were the corrected words by Brigham Young himself, and approved by him as scripture.

well…YOU claimed they wewre never approved. Now you say you can;t support your ciontention.

Got it.

Then it is safe to assume they were approved. Thank you

 

[why_me]

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.

We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.

Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.

The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1978.htm/ensign%20august%201978%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2

 

[SirThomasMore]

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents.

how handy

BY’s sermons were doctrine. They were published. No backtracking now changes that…

so…do you follow every single one of the over 600 commandments in the OT? You keep dodging that question

 

[twopekinguys]

I believe I asked you first to demonstrate which sermons of Brigham Young were corrected by him and approved as scripture, in accordance with his own words. Since this is a positive claim (i.e. it is not normative), then it must be demonstrated.

Right, and all I ask is for you to demonstrate that he did.

Right, and all I ask is for you to demonstrate that he corrected the sermons and approved them as scripture. The wikipedia link states that he had reporters accompany him who recorded his words. It must then be demonstrated that Brigham Young corrected these words and approved them as scripture. That’s all I ask.

Nice try, but I answered your question. Based on his quote, in its entirety, all of his sermons would fall into that category. Also, do you think that with having 23 years to “correct” anything, he was just too busy? Come on, even you can’t believe that.

" Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them"

We have been told by at least one lds on here that when a “prophet” is speaking as a “prophet”, it has to contain the words I bolded. It is clear from his quote that he intended this to be scripture. In fact, he is giving an admonition to those who don’t obey it.

 

[twopekinguys]

Nope. It can assumed that they were corrected, else God would have never let them be published

Also, if they weren’t to be considered doctrine when published, why did one of the later leaders come out and say they were false doctrines?

 

[Caprica]

Nice try, but I answered your question. Based on his quote, in its entirety, all of his sermons would fall into that category. Also, do you think that with having 23 years to “correct” anything, he was just too busy? Come on, even you can’t believe that.

" Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them"

We have been told by at least one lds on here that when a “prophet” is speaking as a “prophet”, it has to contain the words I bolded. It is clear from his quote that he intended this to be scripture. In fact, he is giving an admonition to those who don’t obey it.

Sorry, you did not answer my question with any proof, only assumptions (including above). Based on what exactly in his quote would all of his sermons fall into the scripture category? Brigham Young states that the sermon must be corrected by him and approved by him as scripture. All I ask is for it to be demonstrated that he did that.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Sorry, you did not answer my question with any proof, only assumptions (including above). Based on what exactly in his quote would all of his sermons fall into the scripture category? Brigham Young states that the sermon must be corrected by him and approved by him as scripture. All I ask is for it to be demonstrated that he did that.

well…YOU claimed they wewre never approved. Now you say you can;t support your ciontention.

Got it.

Then it is safe to assume they were approved. Thank you

 

[barnesms]

why me;6679796:

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents.

how handy

BY’s sermons were doctrine. They were published. No backtracking now changes that…

so…do you follow every single one of the over 600 commandments in the OT? You keep dodging that question

You continue to take this position, even when you have been told differently.

BY statement was never made part of scripture regardless of what he said. I can think of another explanation, but it is really not worth going into in this environment. Suffice it to say that it was never added to scripture because it was never scripture and thus could not be doctrine.

In addition, BY stopped discussing the Adam-God theory during his lifetime. He chose to stop saying that his words had been distorted beyond his meaning and it was useless to attempt to explain his personal statements.

Most importantly, those who had been running about with this distortion were corrected by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve when that doctrine was declared FALSE DOCTRINE. Now, say after me, the LDS Church has declared it FALSE DOCTRINE! Say it as many times as necessary until you learn to stop distorting LDS doctrine and its history. Cheers.

 

[twopekinguys]

Sorry, you did not answer my question with any proof, only assumptions (including above). Based on what exactly in his quote would all of his sermons fall into the scripture category? Brigham Young states that the sermon must be corrected by him and approved by him as scripture. All I ask is for it to be demonstrated that he did that.

LOL, you’re just too funny. His quote talks about a “chance” to correct them. That doesn’t mean he would make a correction. There is a big difference.

He had 23 years worth of chances. That is approximately 8400 days in order to make corrections. That’s a whole bunch of chances, don’t you think? I realize he was busy with all of those extra wives, but for 8400 days?

Also, since it was first published, and endorsed by the first presidency (which he was a part of), don’t you think (try using a little logic) any corrections would have been made at that time.

Just because you want to hide from what he claimed to be scripture now, doesn’t mean it wasn’t scripture then.

Also, you might want to become familiar with the definition of the word “endorse”. From Dictionary.com 1. to approve, support, or sustain So you see, with the endorsement of the first presidency, they approved, they supported, and they sustained what he said. So that would mean they were correct as written.

 

[Caprica]

well…YOU claimed they wewre never approved. Now you say you can;t support your ciontention.

Got it.

Then it is safe to assume they were approved. Thank you

Sorry, I claimed that Brigham Young stated that his sermons had to be corrected by him and approved to be considered scripture. I have asked for proof that he did so, and not assumptions. I will continue to wait for the proof.

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6679805:

You continue to take this position, even when you have been told differently.

BY statement was never made part of scripture regardless of what he said. I can think of another explanation, but it is really not worth going into in this environment. Suffice it to say that it was never added to scripture because it was never scripture and thus could not be doctrine.

In addition, BY stopped discussing the Adam-God theory during his lifetime. He chose to stop saying that his words had been distorted beyond his meaning and it was useless to attempt to explain his personal statements.

Most importantly, those who had been running about with this distortion were corrected by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve when that doctrine was declared FALSE DOCTRINE. Now, say after me, the LDS Church has declared it FALSE DOCTRINE! Say it as many times as necessary until you learn to stop distorting LDS doctrine and its history. Cheers.

Yes, I have been told differently by you and other Mormons who would like nothing more than for ewveryone to b eliueve BY did not mean what he said.

But I can read. I can see what he said.

He said it was doctrine. You can run from it, but you can not hide from it

 

[SirThomasMore]

Sorry, I claimed that Brigham Young stated that his sermons had to be corrected by him and approved to be considered scripture. I have asked for proof that he did so, and not assumptions. I will continue to wait for the proof.

well…YOU claimed they wewre never approved. Now you say you can;t support your ciontention.

Got it.

Then it is safe to assume they were approved. Thank you

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s like watching a tennis match!

 

[twopekinguys]

In addition, BY stopped discussing the Adam-God theory during his lifetime. He chose to stop saying that his words had been distorted beyond his meaning and it was useless to attempt to explain his personal statements.

Do you have a reference for this, or is this your opinion/assumption?

 

[barnesms]

Sorry, you did not answer my question with any proof, only assumptions (including above). Based on what exactly in his quote would all of his sermons fall into the scripture category? Brigham Young states that the sermon must be corrected by him and approved by him as scripture. All I ask is for it to be demonstrated that he did that.

I admire your patience. What is truly funny in these exchanges is how often several of the Catholic editors get together and complain about how those terrible Mormons destort Mormon history, twist the truth about their church, whitewash their faith, or God forbid, demonstrate how the Catholic Church is just as guilty, if not more so, of exactly what they are attempting to paste onto the LDS Church. The problem is that on this website, so many Catholics do exactly what they accuse LDS of doing. It is very strange, very disheartening, and very unbecoming of all that try to follow Christ.

Caprica, do you think it wise for us to be here or should this be left alone? I have had some truly wonderful ecumenical conversations, but they are so few. I am curious about your answer. It is easy to understand why WHY ME has been so impatient with editors at times. I am a bit confused at the present as to what to do. Ecumenism is nearly dead on this website, but that may be that this is not a site designed for ecumenical efforts, which is certainly appropriate.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I admire your patience. What is truly funny in these exchanges is how often several of the Catholic editors get together and complain about how those terrible Mormons destort Mormon history, twist the truth about their church, whitewash their faith, or God forbid, demonstrate how the Catholic Church is just as guilty, if not more so, of exactly what they are attempting to paste onto the LDS Church. The problem is that on this website, so many Catholics do exactly what they accuse LDS of doing. It is very strange, very disheartening, and very unbecoming of all that try to follow Christ.

Caprica, do you think it wise for us to be here or should this be left alone? I have had some truly wonderful ecumenical conversations, but they are so few. I am curious about your answer. It is easy to understand why WHY ME has been so impatient with editors at times. I am a bit confused at the present as to what to do. Ecumenism is nearly dead on this website, but that may be that this is not a site designed for ecumenical efforts, which is certainly appropriate.

Just because we don;t buy the apologetics when we can read and see the truth for ourselves does not mean you should get discouraged.

I enjoy the discussions. I enjoy the banter.

I know you say you want ecumenical discussions, but is that what the LDS really wants? Do you deny that the Catholic Church was called the Great and Abominable Church and that a Catholic Priest was protrayed as the agent of Satan in the temple ceremony? Can you see where that would make it hard to believe that you are sincere?

 

[Caprica]

LOL, you’re just too funny. His quote talks about a “chance” to correct them. That doesn’t mean he would make a correction. There is a big difference.

He had 23 years worth of chances. That is approximately 8400 days in order to make corrections. That’s a whole bunch of chances, don’t you think? I realize he was busy with all of those extra wives, but for 8400 days?

Also, since it was first published, and endorsed by the first presidency (which he was a part of), don’t you think (try using a little logic) any corrections would have been made at that time.

Just because you want to hide from what he claimed to be scripture now, doesn’t mean it wasn’t scripture then.

Also, you might want to become familiar with the definition of the word “endorse”. From Dictionary.com 1. to approve, support, or sustain So you see, with the endorsement of the first presidency, they approved, they supported, and they sustained what he said. So that would mean they were correct as written.

Sorry, you continue to provide more assumptions, without any evidence. I have asked you what in his quote leads to the belief that all of his sermons were scriptural, and you have not provided that. I don’t see the word “chance” used in any of the quotes, so I am not sure why you referenced that.

This is really simple, and I understand why it is easier to continue the refrain that all of Brigham Young’s sermons were scripture, and ignore a call for references, instead provide assumptions. The Wikipedia article states that publication of the Journal of Discourses began with the endorsement of the First Presidency. It says nothing about Brigham Young correcting his sermons and approving them as scripture. If it does, please cite that. Otherwise, I assume that you will continue to assume what happened.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Sorry, you continue to provide more assumptions, without any evidence. I have asked you what in his quote leads to the belief that all of his sermons were scriptural, and you have not provided that. I don’t see the word “chance” used in any of the quotes, so I am not sure why you referenced that.

This is really simple, and I understand why it is easier to continue the refrain that all of Brigham Young’s sermons were scripture, and ignore a call for references, instead provide assumptions. The Wikipedia article states that publication of the Journal of Discourses began with the endorsement of the First Presidency. It says nothing about Brigham Young correcting his sermons and approving them as scripture. If it does, please cite that. Otherwise, I assume that you will continue to assume what happened.

well…YOU claimed they wewre never approved. Now you say you can;t support your ciontention.

Got it.

Then it is safe to assume they were approved. Thank you

 

[MelanieAnne]

:takethat: :nunchuk: :bigyikes: :banghead: :juggle: :coffeeread: :knight2: